2020 (12) TMI 1376 - SC - Indian Laws

Seeking grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - misbehaviour with the deceased on account of dowry - demand of dowry on earlier occasions - unnatural death or alleged suicide - HELD THAT - There is no cogent basis for the Single Judge to have arrived at any of the three prima facie findings. The informant had suffered a loss of his own daughter due to an unnatural death in close proximity to the lodging of his complaint. The FIR contains a reference to the previous incident of October 2017 to the demands for dowry payments of money in cheque by the informant to the groom s family and the telephone calls received by the informant from the father-in-law of the deceased and later from the deceased in close proximity to the incident on the same day that she died. The FIR contains specific allegations against the accused commencing with the incident of October 2017. Whether such an incident as reported by the deceased to the police on 1 October 2017 did take place leading to her suffering injuries which were examined at the Government Hospital is a matter for investigation. The trail of monies alleged to be received by the deceased for her professional work is a matter to be investigated. Similarly the transfer of monies by the deceased to her father-in-law and the nexus if any with the funds which she had received from her parents is a matter for serious investigation. The death was unnatural which took place within seven years of the marriage. The alleged phone calls received by the informant from some of the accused and by the deceased on the day when she was found to be hanging are matters which required to be probed. The alleged absence of an external injury on the body of the deceased is a matter for investigation. The approach of the High Court is casual - The observation of the High Court that no specific role is assigned in the FIR to the accused is based on a misreading of the FIR. The entire approach of the High Court is flawed. It is contrary to the record and as we shall now explain contrary to settled principles of law governing the exercise of discretion on the grant of anticipatory bail in a case involving the alleged commission of a serious offence. It is a well settled principle of law that the setting aside of an unjustified illegal or perverse order granting bail is distinct from the cancellation of bail on the ground of the supervening misconduct of the accused or because some new facts have emerged requiring cancellation - In PURAN AND ORS. VERSUS RAMBILAS AND ORS. 2001 (5) TMI 971 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA this Court has held that where an order granting bail ignores material on record or if a perverse order granting bail is passed in a heinous crime without furnishing reasons the interests of justice may require that the order be set aside and bail be cancelled. The judgment of the Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad is unsustainable. The FIR contains a recital of allegations bearing on the role of the accused in demanding dowry of the prior incidents of assault and the payment of moneys by cheque to the in-laws of the deceased. The FIR has referred to the telephone calls which were received both from the father-in-law of the deceased on the morning of 3 August 2020 and from the deceased on two occasions on the same day- a few hours before her body was found. The grant of anticipatory bail in such a serious offence would operate to obstruct the investigation. The FIR by a father who has suffered the death of his daughter in these circumstances cannot be regarded as engineered to falsely implicate the spouse of the deceased and his family. Transfer of further investigation to the CBI - HELD THAT - Selective disclosures to the media affect the rights of the accused in some cases and the rights of victims families in others. The media does have a legitimate stake in fair reporting. But events such as what has happened in this case show how the selective divulging of information including the disclosure of material which may eventually form a crucial part of the evidentiary record at the criminal trial can be used to derail the administration of criminal justice. The investigating officer has a duty to investigate when information about the commission of a cognizable offence is brought to their attention. Unfortunately this role is being compromised by the manner in which selective leaks take place in the public realm. This is not fair to the accused because it pulls the rug below the presumption of innocence. It is not fair to the victims of crime if they have survived the crime and where they have not to their families. Neither the victims nor their families have a platform to answer the publication of lurid details about their lives and circumstances - the insinuation that the FIR had not doubted or referenced the suicide note despite its publication in the news media is rejected. The daughter of the appellant had died in mysterious circumstances. The family had completed the last rites. To expect that they should be scouring the pages of the print and electronic media before reporting the crime is a mockery of the human condition. The apprehension of the appellant that A-2 and his family have a prominent social status in Agra and may have used their position in society to thwart a proper investigation cannot be regarded to be unjustified - The CBI is directed to conduct a further investigation of the case arising out of case Crime No. 0623 of 2020 registered at Police Station Tajganj District Agra dated 7 August 2020. Appeal disposed off.

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Cancellation of Anticipatory Bail
2. Transfer of further investigation to the CBI

Detailed Analysis:

Cancellation of Anticipatory Bail:

The Supreme Court analyzed the grant of anticipatory bail to the accused in a dowry death case. The FIR was lodged by the father of the deceased, alleging harassment and assault by the in-laws for dowry, leading to the unnatural death of his daughter. The Sessions Judge denied anticipatory bail, citing specific allegations and evidence of money transfers and past assaults. However, the High Court granted bail, stating that the FIR appeared engineered and lacked specific roles for the accused.

The Supreme Court found the High Court's reasoning flawed and unsupported by the FIR's detailed allegations. The Court emphasized that anticipatory bail should be granted only in exceptional circumstances and must consider the nature and gravity of the accusation, the role of the accused, and the potential for tampering with evidence or fleeing justice. The Court concluded that the High Court's order was perverse and unjustified, warranting cancellation of the anticipatory bail.

Transfer of Further Investigation to the CBI:

The Supreme Court noted serious deficiencies in the investigation by the UP Police, including the failure to investigate the allegation of murder and the authenticity of the alleged suicide note. The Court highlighted the selective leaks to the media and the influence of the accused, who were wealthy and prominent in Agra. The Court emphasized the need for a fair and impartial investigation, free from local influences.

Given the compromised investigation and the need to ensure justice, the Supreme Court directed the CBI to conduct a further investigation. The Court underscored the importance of a thorough and unbiased investigation to uphold the integrity of the criminal justice system.

Summation:

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's order granting anticipatory bail and directing the CBI to conduct a further investigation into the case. The Court's decision aimed to ensure a fair investigation and address the deficiencies in the initial police investigation. The appeals were disposed of accordingly.